I've been saying for awhile now that you can't prove unconscious bias only show the circumstances that can cause it and the effects it might be having. I don't believe in some grand conspiracy. I believe there will be cases of general incompetence and general corruption both of which can effect anyone including LFC. However I also believe a unique set of circumstances has combined to create a level of unconscious bias in the minds of authority figures that negatively affects LFC in a way that other teams (especially other big teams) don't have to deal with. This might only be marginal but it means we aren't on an even playing surface and need to be a little better than our competitors have to be. It can never be proven beyond reasonable doubt though. And many of the other posters on this thread refuse to even accept it as a realistic possibility without irrefutable proof/evidence. Which is impossible to provide even if I'm 100% correct.

"One word: Thundercougarfalconbird"

I've been saying for awhile now that you can't prove unconscious bias only show the circumstances that can cause it and the effects it might be having. I don't believe in some grand conspiracy. I believe there will be cases of general incompetence and general corruption both of which can effect anyone including LFC. However I also believe a unique set of circumstances has combined to create a level of unconscious bias in the minds of authority figures that negatively affects LFC in a way that other teams (especially other big teams) don't have to deal with. This might only be marginal but it means we aren't on an even playing surface and need to be a little better than our competitors have to be. It can never be proven beyond reasonable doubt though. And many of the other posters on this thread refuse to even accept it as a realistic possibility without irrefutable proof/evidence. Which is impossible to provide even if I'm 100% correct.

Thats the thing though isnt it, its impossible to prove but also to disprove, therefore the possibility of it cannot be discounted. But it is going to come down to individual belief. (Rather like religion ;-))

Resident Misanthrope

Thats the thing though isnt it, its impossible to prove but also to disprove, therefore the possibility of it cannot be discounted. But it is going to come down to individual belief. (Rather like religion ;-))

Well-Known Member

I'm saying it exists and it will have an effect on human decision makers. I'm also saying if you could recreate the same circumstances over and over again you COULD show evidence of it having some effects. But I'm the one arguing that it can't be proven and have been for weeks. It's the other guy laughing at my stance on that;

"At any rate, I posted the Google Scholar search results in response to the notion that we cannot identify evidence of unconscious bias, and I'd reiterate the point that the tens of thousands of highly-trained professionals who have spent years rigorously studying unconscious bias would disagree, quite vehemently one would think."

I dismissed the other source because it is the work of some staff writer on virgin.com. It is marginally more useful to a meaningful discussion than the Arsenal fan blog on Mike Dean a few pages back, i.e. not at all.

If you can't see the difference between the above and a list of peer-review journal articles then I have a new acronym for ya...fmd...

At any rate, I posted the Google Scholar search results in response to the notion that we cannot identify evidence of unconscious bias, and I'd reiterate the point that the tens of thousands of highly-trained professionals who have spent years rigorously studying unconscious bias would disagree, quite vehemently one would think.

For the record, almost any societal or cultural institution, group, structure, etc is subject to unconscious biases working for/against it. LFC is absolutely no different in this regard.That these biases have had the impacts described in this thread has not been demonstrated by the evidence presented therein, and I am very confident that such positions would indeed be outright rejected (and probably ridiculed) were they raised in any serious discussion on the topic.

That staff writer on virgin.com might have put a lot of work into it for all you know. As regards scientists, pyschologists (note I said scientists and not science) etc they have their place obviously but they are not infallible. At one time so called learned men thought the earth flat and supported upon giant elephants etc and lots of other silly theories.

What did quicksand pull? He showed you up for being an interlectual snob. You didn´t like it.

FMD - free music download? I preferred it when you were trying to be funny not succeding at being an arse.

Well-Known Member

I mean do we really need peer reviews, social studies, tens of thousands of mental health professionals furiously working on their experiments and results to tell us what our mam's have told us since childhood? Never judge a book by it's cover.

Looking for Clues...

I mean do we really need peer reviews, social studies, tens of thousands of mental health professionals furiously working on their experiments and results to tell us what our mam's have told us since childhood? Never judge a book by it's cover.

I think sometimes the obvious is almost too obvious, making it more difficult for some people to believe. The constant requirement of evidence, or proof of what is plain to see is a fairly contemporary phenomenon.
In healthcare at present there is a need to demonstrate that you are in line with peer reviewed international best practice. Laudable, and definitley a concept to address and promote high standards and consistencey in care. But sometimes the proverbial baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. The modern requirements take up countless hours of professionals time, proving that they are meeting standards. Ask any professional, Doctor or Nurse in a busy A & E and they will tell you a large percentage of their time is spent writing notes, documenting what they have being doing. So, direct patient contact is reduced. Often patients have more conversation with cleaners than nurses, so that the service can prove it is operating at best standards. Therapeutic engagement is reduced. In proving they are doing the job correctley they are neglecting to do the job in the way they are trained. By order of a society that wants proof of everything.

To move that concept to this debate....
People like you have written passages on living in the city and experiencing the disdain from other parts of the UK. Others have produced evidence on the pitch of decisions against us. I urge people to watch Two Tribes, to read about the dockers strike, I have tried to understand why there has been demonisation of a people.......
The evidence is real, its there. Its obvious.
I dont need the level of academic endeavour asked for to see it. Thats the chasm that exists in the debate I suppose.

★★★★★★

I recognise that some posters have wanted to see whether our 'bad luck' from last season was just a one off or whether it's fairly typical and we've suffered similarly over the previous 5, 10 whatever years so as to gauge it against a larger sample size.

Well, I can tell you that this is not a one off and we've been similarly the 'unluckiest' on at least one other occasion in the last five years. Frustratingly I can't find where I read it but it was two or three years ago and yep, we suffered more than any other team from incorrect officiating. There used to be a website dedicated to this stuff, showing the corrected/adjusted table. No idea, mind, how scientifically rigorous it was nor the allegiances of those running it.

Anyway, anybody wondering what Klopp thought of the study, ponder no more

NEXT!

I recognise that some posters have wanted to see whether our 'bad luck' from last season was just a one off or whether it's fairly typical and we've suffered similarly over the previous 5, 10 whatever years so as to gauge it against a larger sample size.

Well, I can tell you that this is not a one off and we've been similarly the 'unluckiest' on at least one other occasion in the last five years. Frustratingly I can't find where I read it but it was two or three years ago and yep, we suffered more than any other team from incorrect officiating. There used to be a website dedicated to this stuff, showing the corrected/adjusted table. No idea, mind, how scientifically rigorous it was nor the allegiances of those running it.

Anyway, anybody wondering what Klopp thought of the study, ponder no more

Well-Known Member

So let me get this clear. Just so I know what the exact same opinion is of everyone one here is from one post. You are saying there is a worldwide organised conspiracy from high goverment officials all the way down to grass roots primary school PE teachers. Is that right right? Ok great. Thanks just wanted to have all the information.

Give yourselves the chance to be heros

I think sometimes the obvious is almost too obvious, making it more difficult for some people to believe. The constant requirement of evidence, or proof of what is plain to see is a fairly contemporary phenomenon.
In healthcare at present there is a need to demonstrate that you are in line with peer reviewed international best practice. Laudable, and definitley a concept to address and promote high standards and consistencey in care. But sometimes the proverbial baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. The modern requirements take up countless hours of professionals time, proving that they are meeting standards. Ask any professional, Doctor or Nurse in a busy A & E and they will tell you a large percentage of their time is spent writing notes, documenting what they have being doing. So, direct patient contact is reduced. Often patients have more conversation with cleaners than nurses, so that the service can prove it is operating at best standards. Therapeutic engagement is reduced. In proving they are doing the job correctley they are neglecting to do the job in the way they are trained. By order of a society that wants proof of everything.

To move that concept to this debate....
People like you have written passages on living in the city and experiencing the disdain from other parts of the UK. Others have produced evidence on the pitch of decisions against us. I urge people to watch Two Tribes, to read about the dockers strike, I have tried to understand why there has been demonisation of a people.......
The evidence is real, its there. Its obvious.
I dont need the level of academic endeavour asked for to see it. Thats the chasm that exists in the debate I suppose.

I think you are confusing our argument about evidence. This debate is made up of 3 parts in my mind:

1) There is an anti Liverpool prejudice in this country that has gone in since the 1980s at least. Lots of evidence for this and nobody is disputing it. My only point of divergence from the mainstream is that I think a lot of this was created by tv writers (particularly Carla lane) from the city who made a lot of money by promoting stereotypes. I know from my own experience of trying to attract investmet into the city at the time that lots of people watched Bread and it put them off moving their families from London to the city. But to be clear, no argument about evidence on this point.

2) This prejudice create a subconscious bias in the minds of referees. Absolutely no evidence for this at all. No studies, nothing, zilch. You seem to fall back once “well of course you can’t prove this but we all know it must happen”

3) This referring bias means we get unfair decisions. Only one academic study to suggest this and this included deflected goals so not very persuasive.

So when you say we keep asking for more evidence, it’s in support of points 2) and 3) not 1).

Well-Known Member

I think you are confusing our argument about evidence. This debate is made up of 3 parts in my mind:

1) There is an anti Liverpool prejudice in this country that has gone in since the 1980s at least. Lots of evidence for this and nobody is disputing it. My only point of divergence from the mainstream is that I think a lot of this was created by tv writers (particularly Carla lane) from the city who made a lot of money by promoting stereotypes. I know from my own experience of trying to attract investmet into the city at the time that lots of people watched Bread and it put them off moving their families from London to the city. But to be clear, no argument about evidence on this point.

2) This prejudice create a subconscious bias in the minds of referees. Absolutely no evidence for this at all. No studies, nothing, zilch. You seem to fall back once “well of course you can’t prove this but we all know it must happen”

3) This referring bias means we get unfair decisions. Only one academic study to suggest this and this included deflected goals so not very persuasive.

So when you say we keep asking for more evidence, it’s in support of points 2) and 3) not 1).

1 You accept bias has existed since before bread but continue to blame bread for the creation of the bias instead of seeing it as a comical pandering to existing stereotype in an attempt at poking fun at "ourselves"!

2 There is literally shit loads of scientific research into unconscious bias. It's a globally recognised and accepted subject with many scientific journals on it. If you accept there is an anti LFC prejudice and understand unconscious bias there has to be at least a possibility, possibly even a strong probability, of unconscious bias having an effect on the human decision makers that deal with us.

3 Just because you don't know of academic studies doesn't mean they don't exist (me and Kopstar both remember seeing others so you are flat out calling us both liars by refusing to accept they exist simply because you haven't seen them). But even if there were NO scientific studies on the subject it wouldn't mean it didn't exist.

Give yourselves the chance to be heros

1 You accept bias has existed since before bread but continue to blame bread for the creation of the bias instead of seeing it as a comical pandering to existing stereotype in an attempt at poking fun at "ourselves"!

2 There is literally shit loads of scientific research into unconscious bias. It's a globally recognised and accepted subject with many scientific journals on it. If you accept there is an anti LFC prejudice and understand unconscious bias there has to be at least a possibility, possibly even a strong probability, of unconscious bias having an effect on the human decision makers that deal with us.

3 Just because you don't know of academic studies doesn't mean they don't exist (me and Kopstar both remember seeing others so you are flat out calling us both liars by refusing to accept they exist simply because you haven't seen them). But even if there were NO scientific studies on the subject it wouldn't mean it didn't exist.

I said Bread contributed (a “lot of it”) to the bias. It was watched by 21m people every week for 7 years. When I was working in the city I had lots of conversations in the 1980s with potential investors who referred to it as a factor along the lines of “my wife watches that Bread programme, no way she’s ever moving here”. It’s only my experience obviously but I think Carla Lane did more economic damage to the city in the 80s and 90s than Thatcher ever did. Probably another thread in itself.

You seem to think that anti Liverpool sub conscious bias trumps all others in the mind of refs. What about racism and xenophobia ? Much stronger influences. Young black men are the most demonised group in our society. Look at how Sterling and Zaha are treated by refs. In your scenario, if there is a 50/50 decision involving a black foreign player and a white English lfc player, you are saying the anti lfc bias will always prevail in the mind of the ref. Seems unlikely to me.

I am not calling you a liar but I have googled for other studies and can’t find any. Happy to be proved wrong but with the resources of the whole internet at your disposal the argument that you distinctly recall seeing a study but can’t remember where is not very persuasive is it ?

Long Time Nemesis™

Literally no one has said it's impossible. Literally no one has said 'well if you can't cite a study about it, that means that it doesn't exist'. Just to be clear. Some of us have even admitted that it's even probable, but we aren't willing to simply accept the argument that resorts to 'well anyone with eyes can clearly see that we [The Biasists™] are correct '. Wanting people to, even casually, approach the question in a systematic and objective way is entirely fair.

I think it bears repeating that @Anfield rd Dreamer provided the best attempt at answering the question of how in post #951 in this thread. Tbh I found it to be a bit on the wantonly speculative side, but I respect that ARD provided some real, material things to discuss. The next step should be to try and assess whether decisions are skewed against Liverpool in the ways ARD suggested-- to a measurable, statistical degree. (I'm not a believer in capital-T Truth and much less that quantitative analysis can give it to us, but it does have its applications-- particularly where humans are inconsistent at identifying patterns.) I think it's very unfortunate that the ESPN Luck Index a.) includes deflected goals, b.) includes goals scored after the 'allotted time' eh?, and c.) doesn't make available a database showing which teams benefited from which kinds of luck. (Edit: Actually, apparently we could email Dr Thomas Curran and get that database!) Anecdotally, the report posted by @Kopstar alludes to a couple non-penalty situations that likely would have won Liverpool points, but we have no context to put that in to see whether Liverpool were uniquely hurt by non-penalty situations rather than it expressing the phenomenon suggested by some on TIA that referees simply bottle big decisions because they are cowards.

There are a lot of confounding variables to control for in this type of research and it's unfortunate that those with resources/time haven't produced the studies that we perhaps 'deserve'. But that doesn't mean that the debate has to circle back around to 'it's obvious/common sense' half the time.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting the statement, 'You can't have evidence of unconscious bias', however, I think it more likely from your responses that you are conflating notions of 'evidence' and 'proof' when they are absolutely not the same thing. There is evidence of unconscious bias, shitloads of it. I have stated that it exists and that it matters. I have also stated that the LFC is affected by it, just like every other club, institution, framework, structure, and individual in the world. I guess we do actually agree on something.

That said, I feel I need to clarify that I have not once demanded conclusive proof. Not even close. See below:

Of course it's much more convenient for you to spin that as people saying 'City are not getting any dubious decisions in their favour'. Then all you have to do is point to a single dubious decision. Boom. Those mysterious people whom you can't actually quote have been soundly defeated. Simples.

The alternative might be for you to stop strawmanning the counterpoints raised by others in this thread. :well done:

Anyway, I'm getting very confused at this point. I thought this thread was about anti-LFC bias. Are you saying that extends to giving decisions to City in order to help them beat us to the title, even in games not being played vs. LFC?

'By and large fair'? Or in line with the suggestion that referees are inconsistent, homers, and beholden to not spoiling the televised matchday experience? Meaning referees can still give dubious/bad decisions, but not only for/against the interests of Liverpool Football Club? When is shit refereeing just shit refereeing? When is a mistake a mistake?

(In other words, when is your theory about bias falsifiable? Is it ever? If not, do you not see how that is a problem?)

I'm really not trying to come across like a dickhead with you but it gets very difficult when you distort the arguments that others are making, refuse to answer questions, and then act like people are out of line for not just taking your word on all sorts of different things. It's like pulling teeth getting you to back up the most basic of statements that you make. You cry about other posters coming in here to leave short, snide, bait-y comments after every noteworthy refereeing incident and then you come and do the exact same thing while trying to weasel around owning up to the ridiculous strawman you're attacking.

If you can't stand me and you think the rest of my post is just to attack you, at least address the bold.

I find it slightly odd that you don't mention the one that probably should have been given. As @Limiescouse mentioned, it was the tackle on Silva. Could that be because you are showing unconscious bias?

Long Time Nemesis™

So bias is proven to exist in favour of home teams (especially the “bigger” teams) but a clear penalty for us at home against a “smaller” team wasn’t given?

This thread has been going on for forty pages now; anyone who still doesn’t believe that there is a conspiracy against us has either been brainwashed by the media’s “these things even themselves out” drivel or is so naive that they still believe in Santa Claus.

Quoting myself but for those posters who keep insisting that we think we have done some 100% bona fide scientific research, examined the data and have written a thesis that will gain us entry to Harvard or Yale. We know we haven't but we have provided a lot more than all the other camps with their nuance and detail (is that ok Mascot88).

Although the only nuance I can see in their arguments amounts to the same thing. Grow up. Doesn't anything. That's not robust evidence.

SMBY or whatever your initials are, says scientists would laugh at us. The irony of it when I look at your statements on the subject.

You opened a thread on the "Two Tribes" documentary in the Albert. You saw and heard in that programme how Liverpool was being treated, and read how other forum members in here lived it. You have read the accounts of people in here, read the study carried out on points gaps due to poor decisions. The evidence is there, not as tangible as you desire, but there nonetheless.

You still need to have a liitle dig with the "people like you" comment, suggesting that matters such as science or objectivity dont matter to me. And the Anfield fairies comment is another thinly veiled insult at what a number of people in here are observing and knowing exists. Well you know what, these things matter to me. But I refuse to be blinded with the common view of fairness and equity existing. Life isnt like that. 200 years since the age of enlightenment and some people still think the world is a fair and equitable place. Its easier to believe in Anfield fairies sprinkling stardust on the Kop.

I mean do we really need peer reviews, social studies, tens of thousands of mental health professionals furiously working on their experiments and results to tell us what our mam's have told us since childhood? Never judge a book by it's cover.

I think sometimes the obvious is almost too obvious, making it more difficult for some people to believe. The constant requirement of evidence, or proof of what is plain to see is a fairly contemporary phenomenon.
[...]
The evidence is real, its there. Its obvious.
I dont need the level of academic endeavour asked for to see it. Thats the chasm that exists in the debate I suppose.